Help with sine and cosine integral

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around verifying the derivation of the radiation power equation for a dipole antenna, specifically focusing on the integral expressions involved in calculating the internal current, \(I_{int}\). The subject area includes concepts from electromagnetic theory and integral calculus, particularly the Sine Integral (Si) and Cosine Integral (Ci) functions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to reverse-engineer the derivation of the radiation power equation using the final formula, raising questions about the origins of specific logarithmic terms and their representations. Participants discuss the notation used for Si and Ci functions, clarifying potential confusion regarding subscripts. There is also an exploration of discrepancies between the original notes and results obtained from Mathematica.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, offering clarifications on notation and discussing the validity of the original notes. Some suggest that the use of "log" may refer to the natural logarithm, while others express skepticism about the accuracy of the notes. The conversation is ongoing, with no consensus reached yet on the correctness of the derivations or the interpretations of the equations.

Contextual Notes

There are indications of potential errors in the original notes, which have been pointed out by participants. The discussion also highlights the importance of verifying each equation in complex derivations, especially in graduate-level materials where mistakes may occur. The original poster expresses frustration with the clarity of the notes and the challenges faced in deriving the equations correctly.

yungman
Messages
5,741
Reaction score
291
I am verifying the equation of radiation power of dipole antenna. I found mistakes in the derivation in the notes. I know the final equation is correct. So instead of following the steps in the notes, I reverse the step by using the final formula and going back step by step. Here is the final equation, [tex]P_{rad}=η\frac {|I_0|^2}{4\pi}I_{int}\;\hbox{ where:}[/tex]
[tex]I_{int}=\left[ C +ln(kl)-Ci(kl)+\frac 1 2 \sin(kl)[Si(2kl)-2Si(kl)]+\frac 1 2 \cos(kl)\left(C+ln(\frac{kl}{2})+Ci(2kl)-2Ci(kl)\right)\right][/tex]
Where ##C## is Euler constant and ##C##=0.5772.

The step before this that I want to verify is:
[tex]I_{int}=[1+\cos(kl)]\int_0^{kl}\frac{1-cos(v)}{v}dv-2sin(kl)\int_0^{kl}\frac{\sin(v)}{v}dv+\sin(kl)\int_0^{2kl}\frac{\sin(v)}{v}dv-\cos(kl)\int_0^{2kl}\frac{1-\cos(v)}{v}dv[/tex]

I know
[tex]Si(kl)=\int_0^{kl}\frac{\sin(v)}{v}dv,\;Si(2kl)=\int_0^{2kl}\frac{\sin(v)}{v}dv,\;<br /> Ci(kl)=-\int_0^{kl}\frac{1-\cos(v)}{v}dv+log(kl)+C,\;Ci(2kl)=\int_0^{2kl}\frac{1-\cos(v)}{v}dv+log(2kl)+C[/tex]

I have not idea where [itex]ln(kl), \;ln(\frac{kl}{2})[/itex] come from. How come it is ln instead of log? Also, it will make more sense if it is ##ln(2kl)## rather than ##ln(\frac{kl}{2})##. Please help.

Thanks
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Just a comment on your Latex: in the expressions Iint =, Si (kl) = and Ci (kl) = , the 'i' looks like a subscript.
 
SteamKing said:
Just a comment on your Latex: in the expressions Iint =, Si (kl) = and Ci (kl) = , the 'i' looks like a subscript.

I thought it's a subscript and I did use subscript.
 
Si and Ci (without the 'i' being a subscript) are used to denote the Sine Integral and the Cosine Integral, respectively. I know it could be confusing, but these are the accepted symbols for these functions. I wouldn't want someone to go looking for a subscript where none was present.
 
SteamKing said:
Si and Ci (without the 'i' being a subscript) are used to denote the Sine Integral and the Cosine Integral, respectively. I know it could be confusing, but these are the accepted symbols for these functions. I wouldn't want someone to go looking for a subscript where none was present.

Ok, I went back and change that already. I modified a little as I was wrong on the Ci

[tex]Ci(kl)=-\int_0^{kl} \frac{1-\cos(v)}{v}dv+log(kl)+C[/tex]
 
[tex]Si(kl)=\int_0^{kl}\frac{\sin(v)}{v}dv,\;Si(2kl)=\int_0^{2kl}\frac{\sin(v)}{v}dv,\;<br /> Ci(kl)=-\int_0^{kl}\frac{1-\cos(v)}{v}dv+log(kl)+C,\;Ci(2kl)=\int_0^{2kl}\frac{1-\cos(v)}{v}dv+log(2kl)+C[/tex]

I am trying to work on it and this is what I have:
[tex]I_{int}=\left[ C +ln(kl)-Ci(kl)+\frac 1 2 \sin(kl)[Si(2kl)-2Si(kl)]+\frac 1 2 \cos(kl)\left(C+ln(\frac{kl}{2})+Ci(2kl)-2Ci(kl)\right)\right][/tex]
Where ##C## is Euler constant and ##C##=0.5772.
[tex]\Rightarrow\;I_{int}=\int_0^{kl}\frac{1-\cos(v)}{v}dv+\frac{\sin(kl)}{2}\int_0^{2kl}\frac{s\sin(v)}{v}dv-\sin(kl)\int_0^{kl}\frac{\sin(v)}{v}dv+\frac{\cos(kl)}{2}\left( C+ln(\frac {kl}{2})+Ci(2kl)-2Ci(kl)\right)[/tex]
Where I cannot resolve [itex]\frac{\cos(kl)}{2}\left( C+ln(\frac {kl}{2})+Ci(2kl)-2Ci(kl)\right)[/itex]The step in the notes I want to verify is:
[tex]I_{int}=[1+\cos(kl)]\int_0^{kl}\frac{1-cos(v)}{v}dv-2sin(kl)\int_0^{kl}\frac{\sin(v)}{v}dv+\sin(kl)\int_0^{2kl}\frac{\sin(v)}{v}dv-\cos(kl)\int_0^{2kl}\frac{1-\cos(v)}{v}dv[/tex]

It obviously doesn't match. Attacked is the scanned original notes:
 

Attachments

  • trig integral.jpg
    trig integral.jpg
    14.4 KB · Views: 436
Last edited:
I doubt seriously that's log base ten. They just used "log" to represent natural log as we do in Complex Analysis, that is, the expression log(u) in Complex Analysis means the natural log base e and I bet that's what is meant in your expression.
 
jackmell said:
I doubt seriously that's log base ten. They just used "log" to represent natural log as we do in Complex Analysis, that is, the expression log(u) in Complex Analysis means the natural log base e and I bet that's what is meant in your expression.

I kind of suspected that, I just want to verify.

I just posted my work right before your post, can you take a look at it?

Thanks
 
Ok. Mathematica does not give your answer. Rather it gives:

[tex]\gamma-\text{Ci}(v)-\cos(v) \text{Ci}(v)+\cos(v)\text{Ci}(2v)-\cos(v)\log(2)+\log(v)-2\sin(v)\text{Si}(v)+\sin(v)\text{Si}(2v)[/tex]

where v =kl and gamma is Eulergamma. Now, there's always the chance that they are two forms of the same answer. Easy to check that. Just plug in some real number for kl and see if your answer agrees with Mathematica. If your doesn't, no offense but Mathematica is pretty sharp and I'd have to go with it and assume you made a mistake. Don't have time to work through it now though.
 
  • #10
jackmell said:
Ok. Mathematica does not give your answer. Rather it gives:

[tex]\gamma-\text{Ci}(v)-\cos(v) \text{Ci}(v)+\cos(v)\text{Ci}(2v)-\cos(v)\log(2)+\log(v)-2\sin(v)\text{Si}(v)+\sin(v)\text{Si}(2v)[/tex]

where v =kl and gamma is Eulergamma. Now, there's always the chance that they are two forms of the same answer. Easy to check that. Just plug in some real number for kl and see if your answer agrees with Mathematica. If your doesn't, no offense but Mathematica is pretty sharp and I'd have to go with it and assume you made a mistake. Don't have time to work through it now though.

Thanks for the help, did you use (5) in the scanned notes to derive this? I don't trust the notes, It was proven from the other posts that there are mistakes. When I worked from the other end( the beginning), I don't get the ##2\sin(v)\text{Si}(v)##. There should not be a "2" in it. That's the reason I go from the end equation back this time as I am not going anywhere going from the start to derive the equation.

I double checked with Wikipedia already that the end equation is correct for sure. So that is my starting point to derive back to the electromagnetic wave equations. If your result of the Mathematica from (5) doesn't match (6). There must be a problem with (5) of the scanned notes.

That's the problem with those graduate level books, they are not as well scrutinized and there can be typos and errors. You can't take anything for granted and have to verify every single equation. This is supposed to be the real solution manual already! And here I am, struggling with my rusty math!

let me attach the complete notes of this section. This is page 1, the attachment in the early post is the continuation in page 2. It is proven there is a mistake from (1) to (2) already. And it does not add up from (2) to (3)!
 

Attachments

  • Integration L.jpg
    Integration L.jpg
    36.9 KB · Views: 407
Last edited:
  • #11
Anyone please?
 
  • #12
jackmell said:
Ok. Mathematica does not give your answer. Rather it gives:

[tex]\gamma-\text{Ci}(v)-\cos(v) \text{Ci}(v)+\cos(v)\text{Ci}(2v)-\cos(v)\log(2)+\log(v)-2\sin(v)\text{Si}(v)+\sin(v)\text{Si}(2v)[/tex]

where v =kl and gamma is Eulergamma. Now, there's always the chance that they are two forms of the same answer. Easy to check that. Just plug in some real number for kl and see if your answer agrees with Mathematica. If your doesn't, no offense but Mathematica is pretty sharp and I'd have to go with it and assume you made a mistake. Don't have time to work through it now though.

I work out the equation:
[tex]I_{int}=[1+\cos(kl)]\int_0^{kl}\frac{1-cos(v)}{v}dv-2sin(kl)\int_0^{kl}\frac{\sin(v)}{v}dv+\sin(kl)\int_0^{2kl}\frac{\sin(v)}{v}dv-\cos(kl)\int_0^{2kl}\frac{1-\cos(v)}{v}dv[/tex]
[tex]\Rightarrow\; I_{int}=-Ci(kl)+ln(kl)+C-\cos(kl)Ci(kl)+\cos(kl)ln(kl)-2\sin(kl)Si(kl)+\sin(kl)Si(2kl)+\cos(kl)Ci(2kl)-\cos(kl)ln(2kl)[/tex]

The difference from yours is I have ##\cos(kl)ln(kl)## you don't have. Also you have ##-\cos (kl) ln(2)##. I have ##-\cos(kl)ln(2kl)##. Are you sure the ##ln(2)## is not ##ln(2kl)##?

Can you double check as I don't have Mathematica. If it is online calculator, please give me the link to it.

Thanks
 
Last edited:
  • #13
Anyone, please?
 
  • #14
Subtracting your two equations and simplifying

FullSimplify[
(1 + Cos[kl]) Integrate[(1 - Cos[v])/v, {v, 0, kl}] - 2 Sin[kl] Integrate[Sin[v]/v, {v, 0, kl}] +
Sin[kl] Integrate[Sin[v]/v, {v, 0, 2 kl}] - Cos[kl] Integrate[(1 - Cos[v])/v, {v, 0, 2 kl}]
-
(-CosIntegral[kl] + Log[kl] + c - Cos[kl] CosIntegral[kl] + Cos[kl] Log[kl] - 2 Sin[kl] SinIntegral[kl] + Sin[kl] SinIntegral[2 kl] + Cos[kl] CosIntegral[2 kl] - Cos[kl] Log[2 kl])
]

gives

-c + EulerGamma

so if your C equals EulerGamma then the two are the same.

Note: I've changed the case of characters to satisfy Mathematica.
 
  • #15
Thanks for the help. I got it. I was so rusty that I forgot the trick of the log function. It just dawn on me late last night

[tex]2ln(kl)-ln(2kl)=ln\left(\frac {k^2l^2}{2kl}\right)=\ln\left(\frac{kl}{2}\right)[/tex]
[tex]ln(kl)-ln(2kl)=-ln(2)[/tex]

That proofs the equations. Thanks for the help from everyone here.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K